Original Articles
16 April 2025
Vol. 3 No. 1 (2025)
https://doi.org/10.4081/cardio.2025.66

Bridging the gap: integrating stress echocardiography, iFR, CFR, and FFR in the evaluation of coronary artery disease

Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Coronary artery disease, factional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, stress echocardiography, coronary microvascular dysfunction
610
Views
37
Downloads

Authors

Konstantinos Stamos
konstanstamos@gmail.com
General Hospital of Thessaloniki Papageorgiou, Chalkida, Greece.
Theodora Delaporta
Papageorgiou General Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Antonios Delaportas
424 Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece.

Cardiac wasting, a complex and understudied phenomenon, is observed in up to 40% of patients with advanced cancer, contributing to 20-30% of mortality within this cohort. This condition represents a significant determinant of impaired quality of life and increased mortality, highlighting its clinical importance. Numerous pathophysiological mechanisms have been identified in clinical and pre-clinical research as key drivers in the development and progression of cardiac wasting, including elevated circulating inflammatory cytokines, enhanced catabolic processes, hormonal dysregulation, dysfunction of the growth hormone-insulin-like growth factor I (GH-IGF-I) axis, oxidative stress, psychosocial factors, myosin heavy chain isoform switching, and, critically, cardiotoxic effects of anticancer therapies. Clinically, cardiac wasting manifests through a spectrum of symptoms and consequences, including muscle wasting, heart failure-like symptoms, impaired global longitudinal strain (GLS), and structural and functional alterations in the heart, particularly within the left ventricle. These cardiac alterations contribute to progressive cardiovascular decline. Preclinical and clinical studies have confirmed these observations across various models and patient cohorts, demonstrating significant cardiac changes, such as a 33% reduction in cardiomyocyte cross-sectional area, up to 21% decrease in left ventricular mass and 11% reduction in heart weight, and a 50% reduction in left ventricular axon length. Additionally, fibrosis in pre-clinical studies, preservation of left ventricular ejection fraction in some studies, and mild decreases in others, along with an 8.1% reduction in GLS and a 12.1% loss in left ventricular wall thickness, are observed, in conjunction with elevated circulating levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6). Given the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with cardiac wasting in advanced cancer, it is imperative to incorporate comprehensive cardiac assessment into routine follow-up care, refine patient stratification strategies, employ advanced diagnostic technologies in clinical trials, and prioritize research into the cardiovascular impacts of cancer treatments. A concerted focus on advancing the field of cardio-oncology is essential for mitigating the adverse outcomes of cardiac wasting in this vulnerable patient population.

Altmetrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
1. Panoulas VF, Casula R, Kafkas N, et al. Validation of dobutamine stress echocardiography with fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio in stable coronary artery disease. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2019;32(3):327–334.
2. Pijls NH, van Son JA, Kirkeeide RL, et al. Experimental basis of determining maximum coronary, myocardial, and collateral blood flow by pressure measurements for assessing stenosis severity. Am J Cardiol. 1993;71(3):345–353.
3. Bech GJ, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenoses: a randomized trial. Circulation. 2001;103(24):2928–2934. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.103.24.2928
4. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME). N Engl J Med. 2009;360(3):213–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0807611
5. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve–guided PCI vs. medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(11):991–1001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1205361
6. De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve–guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease (FAME 2). N Engl J Med. 2012;367(11):991–1001 (trial stopped early). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1205361
7. Davies JE, Sen S, Dehbi HM, et al. Use of the instantaneous wave-free ratio or fractional flow reserve in PCI (DEFINE-FLAIR). N Engl J Med. 2017;376(19):1824–1834. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1700445
8. Gotberg M, Christiansen EH, Gudmundsdottir IJ, et al. iFR-SWEDEHEART Investigators. Instantaneous wave-free ratio vs. fractional flow reserve–guided intervention. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(19):1813–1823.
9. Gotberg M, Christiansen EH, Gudmundsdottir IJ, et al. Five-year outcomes of instantaneous wave-free ratio vs. fractional flow reserve in iFR-SWEDEHEART. Lancet. 2022;399(10337):1477–1486.
10. Sen S, Davies JE, Dehbi HM, et al. Extended follow-up of iFR vs. FFR–guided coronary revascularization in DEFINE-FLAIR. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79(17):1682–1694.
11. Cook CM, Jeremias A, Petraco R, et al. Fractional flow reserve/instantaneous wave-free ratio discordance in intermediate coronary stenoses: an analysis using Doppler-derived coronary flow measurements. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(24):2514–2524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2017.09.021
12. Fearon WF, Low AF, Yong AS, et al. Feasibility of quantifying absolute coronary blood flow and microvascular resistance in humans: in vivo validation of a thermodilution method. Circulation. 2003;107(24):2982–2988.
13. Crea F, Bairey Merz CN, Beltrame JF, et al. Mechanisms and diagnostic evaluation of persistent angina or angina-like chest pain in patients without obstructive CAD. Circ Res. 2019;124(6):924–932.
14. Wang L, Liu B, Li Y, et al. Microvascular angina: an up-to-date review on diagnosis and treatment. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2020;10(3):613–623.
15. Ford TJ, Stanley B, Good R, et al. Stratified medical therapy using invasive coronary function testing in angina: the CorMicA trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(23 Pt A):2841–2855. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.006
16. Nørgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S, et al. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive FFR derived from coronary CT angiography vs. standard CTA. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(12):1145–1155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.043
17. Xu B, Tu S, Qiao S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of angiography-based quantitative flow ratio measurements for online assessment of coronary stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(25):3077–3087. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.035
18. Zeng M, Li B, Wang X, et al. The accuracy of QFR compared with FFR in diagnosing the functional severity of coronary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:635012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.758560
19. Knuuti J, Wijns W, Achenbach S, et al. ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(3):407–477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425
20. Gulati M, Levy PD, Mukherjee D, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA chest pain guideline. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;78(22):e187–e285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.07.053
21. Neumann FJ, Sechtem U, Banning AP, et al. 2024 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease (update). Eur Heart J. 2024;45(2):115–199.
22. Shaw LJ, de Coronado D, Lim MJ, et al. Noninvasive identification of high-risk coronary artery disease: insights from the CONFIRM Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(4):438–447.
23. Picano E, Lancellotti P, Agricola E, et al. Stress echocardiography expert consensus statement. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2008;9(6):415–437. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejechocard/jen175
24. Layland J, Oldroyd KG, Curzen N, et al. Fractional flow reserve vs. angiographically guided management in stable coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Circulation. 2015;131(4):300–310.
25. Itu L, Rapaka S, Passerini T, et al. A machine-learning approach for computing fractional flow reserve from coronary computed tomography. J Appl Physiol. 2016;121(1):42–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00752.2015

How to Cite



1.
Stamos K, Delaporta T, Delaportas A. Bridging the gap: integrating stress echocardiography, iFR, CFR, and FFR in the evaluation of coronary artery disease. Global Cardiol [Internet]. 2025 Apr. 16 [cited 2025 Jun. 18];3(1). Available from: https://www.globalcardiology.info/site/article/view/66
Copyright (c) 2025 the Author(s) Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.